Ricketts v. Allen

Ohio Supreme Court

Ricketts v. Allen

158 N.E. 651, 117 Ohio St. 325, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 766, 117 Ohio St. (N.S.) 325, 1927 Ohio LEXIS 236

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 2, 1927

Docket20775

StatusPublished

This text of 158 N.E. 651 (Ricketts v. Allen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ricketts v. Allen, 158 N.E. 651, 117 Ohio St. 325, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 766, 117 Ohio St. (N.S.) 325, 1927 Ohio LEXIS 236 (Ohio 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

BY THE COURT.

The plaintiff in error claims that he has been deprived of due process of law and equal protection of the law, and that, therefore, a constitutional question is presented entitling him to file his petition in error in this court as a matter of right.

An examination of the record, including the amended petition filed in the court of common pleas, shows that the statutory provisions, if taken advantage of by plaintiff in error, would have afforded complete protection of his rights. Denial of relief from the result of his own errors and omissions does not present a constitutional question. The petition in error is therefore dismissed.

(Marshall, CJ., Day, Allen, Kinkade and Matthias, JJ., concur. Robinson and Jones, JJ., not participating.)

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BY THE COURT.

The plaintiff in error claims that he has been deprived of due process of law and equal protection of the law, and that, therefore, a constitutional question is presented entitling him to file his petition in error in this court as a matter of right.

An examination of the record, including the amended petition filed in the court of common pleas, shows that the statutory provisions, if taken advantage of by plaintiff in error, would have afforded complete protection of his rights. Denial of relief from the result of his own errors and omissions does not present a constitutional question. The petition in error is therefore dismissed.

(Marshall, CJ., Day, Allen, Kinkade and Matthias, JJ., concur. Robinson and Jones, JJ., not participating.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 N.E. 651, 117 Ohio St. 325, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 766, 117 Ohio St. (N.S.) 325, 1927 Ohio LEXIS 236, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ricketts-v-allen-ohio-1927.